What does freedom mean for those who aren't capable of self-reliance?

OK fine Usht, you don't like communism. But what about mutualism and market socialism? They are forms of libertarian socialism with competitive markets. Do you think this is feasible? More importantly, do you think this is compatible with freedom?

edited 29th Apr '11 4:01:51 PM by LoveHappiness

Mutualism is good if that's what the people want and Market Socialism is perfectly fine if that's what the people want. They've both been shown to work on larger scales, though I do think some of the dislike for large industries in mutualism can be a bit hindering, especially if we're talking natural monopolies. As far as self-reliance goes, you lose a good chunk of that in Market Socialism as along with a good chunk of freedom in how you spend that money, but if the public values such things sufficiently, then it's okay, since again, the system has proven to work.

Compared to gift economies which fall apart when sloth is introduced and things like communism (gee, did I mention China dropped that too and is now doing much better?). No self-reliance is bad, some self-reliance to lots of self-reliance is good, total self-reliance is impossible to reach.

"Mutualism is good if that's what the people want and Market Socialism is perfectly fine if that's what the people want"

So you believe in totally equality of all possible politico-economic systems as long as "the people" want it? Including slavery and dictatorships? Meh, not very nice way of looking at things. Personally I see both chattel slavery and wage slavery as wrong, not culturally relative either. Also, apparently you refuse to talk about the Spanish Revolution for some reason.

Probably because I haven't studied it all that much and so I won't waste your time trying to talk about that which I don't know about. Now if you don't mind, dictatorships have worked in the past and if people want a dictator, so be it, they're the cones in control of their lives and I shouldn't intervene unless I'm directly involved. If they want slavery, then I'll say they have piss poor morals and are being economically inefficient, but if that's what they want... then yes, go for it, but as you'll notice with all of our first world countries, people managed to get away from that anyway and so yeah, I believe people will figure out the best answer for themselves is to have no slavery.

In other words, you don't actually care about freedom at all.

Thread Hopping. Freedom is a very vague and generic term, Love Happiness. It is subjective and can mean different things to different people in different situations. I have the freedom to assault you in a dark alleyway, in a literal sense, but I would then be infringing multiple freedoms of yours. I guess what I'm saying is; don't be too naive about this. There's usually another interpretation.

edited 29th Apr '11 5:05:57 PM by DanEile

Hi there logical leap. No, I do care about freedom and in fact, I'd prefer a society that has the built in rules "No direct control over others", but then I realize with that first step, I'll be heading into utopia territory and instead I prefer to say, "People eventually figure out that slavery is a bad thing anyway" because I believe that the majority will figure that out and use their freedom of choice to choose to have no slaves.

In other words, I believe people are, deep down, good and with time, correct themselves.

EDIT: Why yes, I do. Care to read this post?

edited 29th Apr '11 5:09:15 PM by Usht

Yes, it's subjective to an extent. But to say you literally have no problems with dictatorships or slavery except as it effects economic efficiency is pretty darn cold-hearted. You do not care about the individual and their sufferings, only their usefulness. Unless you beg to differ?

EDIT: Ninja'd

Meh, OK. Timescales don't matter so much. However, I think you ignoring the extent to which humans are conservative, not to mention being overly optimistic about the future. The difference between reformist and revolutionary thought is what, huh...

edited 29th Apr '11 5:15:19 PM by LoveHappiness

Wasn't endorsing slavery or dictatorships, simply offering a point of view.

Yeah, I'm optimistic and I also realize being conservative =/= slavery. No, I think someone smart will come along, realize the potential they're missing out on by forcing slaves around, and then figure out "Everyone will be happier if we didn't have slaves". Yeah, I believe humanity is full of bastards, I think it's full people trying to figure out how to improve what they're thinking about.

Bingo. That's exactly why slavery will eventually disappear on its own because it's not efficient.

edited 29th Apr '11 5:18:13 PM by Usht

Slavery ended in the north not because northerners were better people, they just had no economic need for them.

I don't know, I've heard arguments that workers' self-management is actually more economically efficient than wage labour. If that's true, then you see the influence culture can have is more important.

edited 29th Apr '11 5:34:48 PM by LoveHappiness

Define "self-management" because I'm failing to see how those two terms are all that different, if you've got better self-management, chances are you're paid more.

[1]

There you go...

Or you can streamline the process and just pay them more. Also, I don't think has anything to do with freedoms and self-reliance (at least we were tangentially related before we people's freedom to choose and what that entails).

edited 29th Apr '11 5:42:39 PM by Usht

"Also, I don't think has anything to do with freedoms and self-reliance"

Bosses are intrinsically against freedoms and self-reliance.

No they're not. You're still self-reliant since you've got to work to get yourself that money so you aren't able to jump lean on the boss and say "I need more money" and it's not restricting your freedom if you're allowed to quit... which you're pretty much allowed to do anywhere.

So.... "Follow my shitty conditions or get the fuck out and be poor"

Yeah thats alot of freedom.

"You're still self-reliant"

Nope. It's subordination and hugely unequal in terms of bargaining power. And if you ask any person if they actually want a boss, they will probably say no. People only do it because they have no choice, they are dependent on their masters.

edited 29th Apr '11 5:52:20 PM by LoveHappiness

Congrats you two, would we like to repeat a previous discussion in this topic? You've got the freedom to start your own business, you've got the freedom to go find a different boss, and you've got the freedom to become more desirable as a worker and have more bargaining power. To say that a boss has total control is false because there's plenty of alternatives and if that boss has too restrictive of conditions, then he or she will be forced to lower those conditions due to a lack of workers.

Great, so now it's either total control or total freedom.

Note: This is not a slippery slope argument. It's how I see your perspective on bosses.

edited 29th Apr '11 6:09:14 PM by LoveHappiness

Dammit, Love, you really like your slippery slopes don't you? Come back later when you realize that I've been advocating neither.

Really, to say that there's no choice at all is false. But your choices ARE restricted by bosses as a class just existing. These are a small minority of people who exploit you for profit. And they have a lot of power, to say otherwise is complete bull. And the degree of choice is sharply limited for most people because of that. Really now.

edited 29th Apr '11 6:14:05 PM by LoveHappiness

Congrats, that's part of the freedoms that this society gave up in exchange for more organized businesses. And don't say they exploit you for profit, that just makes them sound Always Chaotic Evil, they need money to live like everyone else, it's just thanks to an advantage they obtained or had (or simply working for a longer time) they were able to reach such a position. More so, they only have as much power as the community gives them, which is to say, if you don't like Mc Donalds, don't work there and don't buy from there, because that's where their power comes from.

As I was saying, I've heard arguments that workers' self-management is actually more economically efficient than wage labour. If that's true, then you see the influence culture can have is more important.